You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

I don't believe you even brought the old "But they didn't win a SB" argument up. You know how irrelevant and tired that is. You really glossed over the whole point, which is that you don't hear the wide 9 being blamed for anything outside of Philly. You mentioned Detroit having problems with their secondary "for as long as you can recall" and that would be correct. Their problems were there before the wide 9 was even installed. Which, of course, ties into your point 2. Other teams that use this formation do not have the same issues that the Eagles have been having.

I acknowledged it was irrelevant before I posted anything, and made the point just to say that the contemporary "wide-9" examples aren't exactly anything special.

How could you legitimize a system that is used by a bare minority of the league and hasn't proved to be worthy of a Championship in the present day NFL?

I don't follow Detroit football. Nor do I follow Cincinnati football. Nor do I follow Tennessee football.
I don't know what their experiences were, or are. So I asked them myself.

TENNESSEE FAN

titansNvolsR#1 wrote:

It can work, and it's damn successful, but you need 2 major components or it will fail miserably.

1. Star DT: This pushes the pocket up, keeping the QB from stepping up past the DEs rushing. Also allows you to only rush 4 linemen and keep everyone else in coverage. Ex. Haynesworth.

2. Good LB core: Need run stoppers as everyone knows the wide-9 is vulnerable to the run. But since you're mostly rushing 4, they need to be good in coverage as well. Ex. Bulluck and Thornton

We don't really have dominant guys up front. We have effective guys, but not dominant "do-it-all" type players. As this Tennessee fan alluded to, without these two components we would fail miserably.

While we have a half-decent LB corps, I think it didn't help that Kendricks ran into a huge rookie wall. Once he hit the wall, we didn't have the linebackers to sustain the wide-9.

Nor do we have Haynesworth.

DETROIT FAN

IDOG_det wrote:

Yes we run a wide-9. I'm not familiar with how you guys ran yours, but we line our front 4 nearly the same every time. Occasionally the DT's will lineup a little different, but it's basically all the same. Our LB's need to be versatile, fast and need to read well. They need these traits to avoid getting blocked by lineman and because it is a spread out defense. Suh draws a double, allowing for the other DT to be single teamed. The DE's usually get a single team, but may get a TE on them as well. The LB's are usually blocked by a FB our a TE and need to be quick to the ball to avoid being blocked.

The problems are that we will let a few runs happen, and that the DL will miss the RB sometimes when pursuing the QB. Our DE's are also awfully inconsistent.

The DT's are what make the defense work. Fairley finally got the starting gig, and he and Suh have created a nearly unstoppable duo. Our DE's have been a problem for us. They aren't able to get the QB in his drop back, and that is what allows the QB to break off some big runs occasionally. Overall, the defense works pretty well, and it masks the awful secondary we have VERY well. I prefer a different defense, but if we get the right peices (another DE and a S), we could be an AMAZING defense.

Much of the same. Versatility at LB and dominance at DT.

He speaks of over-pursuing (as I have) and also speaks of being gashed against the run (as I have).

The wide-9 in Detroit allegedly has masked the problems in the secondary, but it can also be argued that Suh and Fairley combination has masked the problems with the wide-9.

BENGALS FAN

INbengalfan wrote:

We don't run it here. We did years ago, and occasionally line DEs outside the OTs, but nothing compared to what the eagles ran. Justin Smith ran that technique here, and let's just say it didn't work out too well for us, as he got sucked in deep and the RB would fly through the hole vacated bhy him.

They don't run it there. And it failed miserably here.

Quote:

You picked a running play where the backside Flanker pulls as an example? And a flat swing to the slot receiver? Even if the run play were the OT pulling, that and the quick out you show are things you could find in many modern NFL games against agressive defenses. Nothing special to see there.

I picked a random game from this year to see if I could find instances where the ends in the wide-9 were basically let to run free in both run and pass situations.

I found examples of both in the first few minutes of the game.

Yes, many modern teams take advantage of aggressive defenses in this manner. So what is your point? My point is that our ends are ALWAYS aggressive, allowing plays like this to ALWAYS be available.

It's predictable. Teams know what our ends will do. Therefore they know what to do to beat it. There are simple remedies for an over-aggressive defense and those simple remedies are proving to be destroying us.

And you said you never saw any instance where one of our ends were let free to pass rush.
And I delivered one for you in the 1st game I looked at, by random. And there it was.

Quote:

The lack of variation as you describe attests far more to playcalling than the base formation, wouldn't you say?

The base formation is dictating play calling. That is what I'm saying.

Quote:

Certainly, you could say all that about Bowles, which is why I pointed out that I'm not entirely sure I blame him.

I would tend to place blame on Washburn being a total [inappropriate/removed] rather than the system, if you're going to blame anything.

I still just see people grasping at anything they can think of to scapegoat the crapfest of a season.

Fair arguments for and against Bowles, we just don't know.
Washburn being a tool did not help.

Why are there only scapegoats? This team has major issues. I think the wide-9 has failed miserably and contributed to the crap-fest.

Even last year, when the Eagles registered a league-best 50 sacks, the stats were hollow as the losses piled up week after week. And this year, we’ve seen the scheme continually put the Eagles’ safeties in difficult or impossible situations while the sack numbers dwindled.

Quote:

The Wide 9 forces safeties to cheat the run, since the defensive linemen are so busy blasting up the field thinking sack that they’re often unable to or unwilling to tackle running backs or are out of position to make tackles. Just won’t work over the long haul.

I don't believe you even brought the old "But they didn't win a SB" argument up. You know how irrelevant and tired that is. You really glossed over the whole point, which is that you don't hear the wide 9 being blamed for anything outside of Philly. You mentioned Detroit having problems with their secondary "for as long as you can recall" and that would be correct. Their problems were there before the wide 9 was even installed. Which, of course, ties into your point 2. Other teams that use this formation do not have the same issues that the Eagles have been having.

I acknowledged it was irrelevant before I posted anything, and made the point just to say that the contemporary "wide-9" examples aren't exactly anything special.

How could you legitimize a system that is used by a bare minority of the league and hasn't proved to be worthy of a Championship in the present day NFL?

I don't follow Detroit football. Nor do I follow Cincinnati football. Nor do I follow Tennessee football.
I don't know what their experiences were, or are. So I asked them myself.

TENNESSEE FAN

titansNvolsR#1 wrote:

It can work, and it's damn successful, but you need 2 major components or it will fail miserably.

1. Star DT: This pushes the pocket up, keeping the QB from stepping up past the DEs rushing. Also allows you to only rush 4 linemen and keep everyone else in coverage. Ex. Haynesworth.

2. Good LB core: Need run stoppers as everyone knows the wide-9 is vulnerable to the run. But since you're mostly rushing 4, they need to be good in coverage as well. Ex. Bulluck and Thornton

We don't really have dominant guys up front. We have effective guys, but not dominant "do-it-all" type players. As this Tennessee fan alluded to, without these two components we would fail miserably.

While we have a half-decent LB corps, I think it didn't help that Kendricks ran into a huge rookie wall. Once he hit the wall, we didn't have the linebackers to sustain the wide-9.

Nor do we have Haynesworth.

DETROIT FAN

IDOG_det wrote:

Yes we run a wide-9. I'm not familiar with how you guys ran yours, but we line our front 4 nearly the same every time. Occasionally the DT's will lineup a little different, but it's basically all the same. Our LB's need to be versatile, fast and need to read well. They need these traits to avoid getting blocked by lineman and because it is a spread out defense. Suh draws a double, allowing for the other DT to be single teamed. The DE's usually get a single team, but may get a TE on them as well. The LB's are usually blocked by a FB our a TE and need to be quick to the ball to avoid being blocked.

The problems are that we will let a few runs happen, and that the DL will miss the RB sometimes when pursuing the QB. Our DE's are also awfully inconsistent.

The DT's are what make the defense work. Fairley finally got the starting gig, and he and Suh have created a nearly unstoppable duo. Our DE's have been a problem for us. They aren't able to get the QB in his drop back, and that is what allows the QB to break off some big runs occasionally. Overall, the defense works pretty well, and it masks the awful secondary we have VERY well. I prefer a different defense, but if we get the right peices (another DE and a S), we could be an AMAZING defense.

Much of the same. Versatility at LB and dominance at DT.

He speaks of over-pursuing (as I have) and also speaks of being gashed against the run (as I have).

The wide-9 in Detroit allegedly has masked the problems in the secondary, but it can also be argued that Suh and Fairley combination has masked the problems with the wide-9.

BENGALS FAN

INbengalfan wrote:

We don't run it here. We did years ago, and occasionally line DEs outside the OTs, but nothing compared to what the eagles ran. Justin Smith ran that technique here, and let's just say it didn't work out too well for us, as he got sucked in deep and the RB would fly through the hole vacated bhy him.

They don't run it there. And it failed miserably here.

Quote:

You picked a running play where the backside Flanker pulls as an example? And a flat swing to the slot receiver? Even if the run play were the OT pulling, that and the quick out you show are things you could find in many modern NFL games against agressive defenses. Nothing special to see there.

I picked a random game from this year to see if I could find instances where the ends in the wide-9 were basically let to run free in both run and pass situations.

I found examples of both in the first few minutes of the game.

Yes, many modern teams take advantage of aggressive defenses in this manner. So what is your point? My point is that our ends are ALWAYS aggressive, allowing plays like this to ALWAYS be available.

It's predictable. Teams know what our ends will do. Therefore they know what to do to beat it. There are simple remedies for an over-aggressive defense and those simple remedies are proving to be destroying us.

And you said you never saw any instance where one of our ends were let free to pass rush.
And I delivered one for you in the 1st game I looked at, by random. And there it was.

Quote:

The lack of variation as you describe attests far more to playcalling than the base formation, wouldn't you say?

The base formation is dictating play calling. That is what I'm saying.

Quote:

Certainly, you could say all that about Bowles, which is why I pointed out that I'm not entirely sure I blame him.

I would tend to place blame on Washburn being a total [inappropriate/removed] rather than the system, if you're going to blame anything.

I still just see people grasping at anything they can think of to scapegoat the crapfest of a season.

Fair arguments for and against Bowles, we just don't know.
Washburn being a tool did not help.

Why are there only scapegoats? This team has major issues. I think the wide-9 has failed miserably and contributed to the crap-fest.

Even last year, when the Eagles registered a league-best 50 sacks, the stats were hollow as the losses piled up week after week. And this year, we’ve seen the scheme continually put the Eagles’ safeties in difficult or impossible situations while the sack numbers dwindled.

Quote:

The Wide 9 forces safeties to cheat the run, since the defensive linemen are so busy blasting up the field thinking sack that they’re often unable to or unwilling to tackle running backs or are out of position to make tackles. Just won’t work over the long haul.

The problem is that you think I'm "legitimizing" the system. I already said I'm not particularly for or against it. What you have failed to grasp over and over again is that, while every system has its flaws, you are placing an inordinate amount of blame on it for the Eagles defensive issues. Thus "scapegoating" it. I have no idea why you insist on there being a scapegoat.

I had already read that Frank article before you quoted it. Tennesee and Detroit prove his assertation wrong. Look at what the fans you asked said. It works. The only place it receives so much blame is in Philly.

The only place they run the wide-9 100% of the time with improper personnel is in Philly.

It is the fundamental flaw in the defense.
Nothing can get corrected until it does.
They can't scheme around it.
It is like having two noses and worrying about your haircut.
Nobody is looking at your hair.

Also, it is over.
Judge the defense going forward.
There is still time.

The only place they run the wide-9 100% of the time with improper personnel is in Philly.
False.

It is the fundamental flaw in the defense.
Nothing can get corrected until it does.
They can't scheme around it.
It is like having two noses and worrying about your haircut.
Nobody is looking at your hair.

I disagree that they can't scheme with it. I think that Bowles doesn't know what to do with it (so maybe that is agreeing that they can't scheme with it. But that makes it a coaching issue, then).

Also, it is over.
Judge the defense going forward.
There is still time.

The last is true. Hopefully with Washburn not there being cranky and Bowles getting to install more of what he prefers and understands how to work with, the defense will improve.

The problem is that you think I'm "legitimizing" the system. I already said I'm not particularly for or against it. What you have failed to grasp over and over again is that, while every system has its flaws, you are placing an inordinate amount of blame on it for the Eagles defensive issues. Thus "scapegoating" it. I have no idea why you insist on there being a scapegoat.

I had already read that Frank article before you quoted it. Tennesee and Detroit prove his assertation wrong. Look at what the fans you asked said. It works. The only place it receives so much blame is in Philly.

I never said you were legitimizing it. The first time I brought up "legitimizing" was in defense to my argument that it has never been legitimized by any team. That's a part of my argument that I personally am advancing.

How am I failing to grasp it? This is a thread about the wide-9.
We have a wide range of problems and I've addressed all failing aspects of our defense in their respective threads.

The wide-9 doesn't account for a lack of effort.
The wide-9 doesn't account for bad tackling.
The wide-9 doesn't account for being duped by pump action.
The wide-9 doesn't account for a lot of things, but it most certainly can be attributed to a lot of the problems our defense has faced.

Every point I've made was in regards to the situation in Philadelphia. I don't care if a variation of the wide-9 works somewhere else. It doesn't matter, different city, different team, different scheme, even if it's the same on paper.

Every point I made was from my observations and analysis from watching games this year.

And where am I grasping for scapegoats? I'm blaming the wide-9 as a fundamental problem of this defense. And I stated many reasons as to why. The wide-9 isn't my scapegoat; it's just one of many goats who are sickly and ready for the euthanasia._________________

I never said you were legitimizing it. The first time I brought up "legitimizing" was in defense to my argument that it has never been legitimized by any team. That's a part of my argument that I personally am advancing.

Except it has. You know as well as I do that the sole criteria for "legitimizing" a system is not and never was a SB. There are at least 2 teams that have used it and been reasonably successful on defense.

Phire wrote:

How am I failing to grasp it? This is a thread about the wide-9.
We have a wide range of problems and I've addressed all failing aspects of our defense in their respective threads.

The wide-9 doesn't account for a lack of effort.
The wide-9 doesn't account for bad tackling.
The wide-9 doesn't account for being duped by pump action.
The wide-9 doesn't account for a lot of things, but it most certainly can be attributed to a lot of the problems our defense has faced.

You are confusing a lot of the first 3 on your list as part of the last one. That's how.

Phire wrote:

Every point I've made was in regards to the situation in Philadelphia. I don't care if a variation of the wide-9 works somewhere else. It doesn't matter, different city, different team, different scheme, even if it's the same on paper.

Every point I made was from my observations and analysis from watching games this year.

But it needs to be legitimized!

Phire wrote:

And where am I grasping for scapegoats?

Phire wrote:

I'm blaming the wide-9 as a fundamental problem of this defense.

You answered your own question.

Phire wrote:

And I stated many reasons as to why.

Most of them irrelevant or poor.

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 isn't my scapegoat;

Then what was the purpose of this thread? Looks scapegoaty to me.

Phire wrote:

it's just one of many goats who are sickly and ready for the euthanasia.

I never said you were legitimizing it. The first time I brought up "legitimizing" was in defense to my argument that it has never been legitimized by any team. That's a part of my argument that I personally am advancing.

Except it has. You know as well as I do that the sole criteria for "legitimizing" a system is not and never was a SB. There are at least 2 teams that have used it and been reasonably successful on defense.

Now that the wide-9 is gone from Philadelphia, there is basically 1 team that uses it.

The wide-9 will die without ever making a legitimate push in the playoffs.

Maybe by your criteria, but to me, the wide-9 is a terrible scheme. And it's not even like the contemporary examples have had astounding success either. Moderate success? Sure, but those teams had dominant defensive players who would have been successful in any old 4-3.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

How am I failing to grasp it? This is a thread about the wide-9.
We have a wide range of problems and I've addressed all failing aspects of our defense in their respective threads.

The wide-9 doesn't account for a lack of effort.
The wide-9 doesn't account for bad tackling.
The wide-9 doesn't account for being duped by pump action.
The wide-9 doesn't account for a lot of things, but it most certainly can be attributed to a lot of the problems our defense has faced.

You are confusing a lot of the first 3 on your list as part of the last one. That's how.

I never mentioned any of the first 3 at any point in the de-manifesto.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

Every point I've made was in regards to the situation in Philadelphia. I don't care if a variation of the wide-9 works somewhere else. It doesn't matter, different city, different team, different scheme, even if it's the same on paper.

Every point I made was from my observations and analysis from watching games this year.

a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Scapegoating implies there is some ill-intent on my part to shift blame from one group to another who is largely undeserving.

My argument is that Washburn and the wide-9 are largely deserving of the blame. Therefore, there is no scapegoating. I'm pointing out the sick goat.

So tell me, who is more deserving of the blame? The wide-9 sucked here. Washburn and the wide-9 go hand in hand. His stubborn attitude and inflexibility is exactly how I would characterize the wide-9. That is precisely why he is the Jesus of the wide-9.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

And I stated many reasons as to why.

Most of them irrelevant or poor.

I've used video evidence from a previous game this year and posted their frames, asked 3 different fan bases for their personal testimony on their experiences with the system, and used sources from writers around the media.

And you have offered me opinion.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 isn't my scapegoat;

Then what was the purpose of this thread? Looks scapegoaty to me.

Who am I attempting to remove blame from?

Quote:

Phire wrote:

it's just one of many goats who are sickly and ready for the euthanasia.

The bold is true.

The wide-9 is not a healthy goat. It needs to die as well.
And I never said the wide-9 was the ONLY PROBLEM of this defense.
Just that it is the largest problem of this defense._________________

Now that the wide-9 is gone from Philadelphia, there is basically 1 team that uses it.

The wide-9 will die without ever making a legitimate push in the playoffs.

Maybe by your criteria, but to me, the wide-9 is a terrible scheme. And it's not even like the contemporary examples have had astounding success either. Moderate success? Sure, but those teams had dominant defensive players who would have been successful in any old 4-3.

Either way I have nothing invested in the wide 9 being the next NFL trend, so kind of irrelevant to me. This portion of the argument is getting completely off track. The point was that noone blames the wide 9 for stuff outside of Philly. And it's true.

Quote:

[quote="Phire"]

I never mentioned any of the first 3 at any point in the de-manifesto.

Exactly my point. You placed the majority of the blame on the wide 9, which is simply not true.

Phire wrote:

And it never has been.

Either it matters how it works in other places or it doesn't. Figure out which argument you are using.

a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Scapegoating implies there is some ill-intent on my part to shift blame from one group to another who is largely undeserving.

My argument is that Washburn and the wide-9 are largely deserving of the blame. Therefore, there is no scapegoating. I'm pointing out the sick goat.

So tell me, who is more deserving of the blame? The wide-9 sucked here. Washburn and the wide-9 go hand in hand. His stubborn attitude and inflexibility is exactly how I would characterize the wide-9. That is precisely why he is the Jesus of the wide-9.

No our definition is the same. Perhaps "misguided" is a better word than "ill" as far as intent is concerned.

Quote:

[quote="Phire"]

I've used video evidence from a previous game this year and posted their frames, asked 3 different fan bases for their personal testimony on their experiences with the system, and used sources from writers around the media.

And you have offered me opinion.

Your video evidence didn't prove what you thought it did. The personal testimony and your media sources were contradictory. And your media source was pretty much wrong. He was doing what you are doing.

Phire wrote:

Who am I attempting to remove blame from?

Remove? I don't know. Misallocate? We've already been over that.

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 is not a healthy goat. It needs to die as well.
And I never said the wide-9 was the ONLY PROBLEM of this defense.
Just that it is the largest problem of this defense.

And this is where we differ. Does it have issues? Yes. All defensive schemes have issues. Is it the biggest issue? No. I would say Washburn undermining the power structure was a far bigger issue. I would say he contributed to some of the other issues such as lack of consistant effort. I would say that Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of the defense properly was a bigger issue. But that is a coaching issue, not a scheme issue.

The point was that noone blames the wide 9 for stuff outside of Philly. And it's true.

This reasoning is flawed because we aren't exposed to media from other cities.

Fans I've asked seem to all concede that the wide-9 has similar problems that I've cited. Just because our team is currently being highly scrutinized and analyzed inside and out, it doesn't rule out that the wide-9 has had similar problems elsewhere.

I don't hear anything about the Cardinal's current quarterback, but I know somewhere he's sucking.

Just because we don't hear it, it doesn't mean it's not being said.

Quote:

Quote:

[quote="Phire"]

I never mentioned any of the first 3 at any point in the de-manifesto.

Exactly my point. You placed the majority of the blame on the wide 9, which is simply not true.

But that's the point of this thread... if I wanted to talk about those things I'd talk about them separately, which I've done.

And you've failed to offer anything of substance to convince me that the wide-9 isn't the root of all problems here.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

And it never has been.

Either it matters how it works in other places or it doesn't. Figure out which argument you are using.

It would be wrong to say it doesn't matter at all and equally as wrong to say it completely matters.

a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Scapegoating implies there is some ill-intent on my part to shift blame from one group to another who is largely undeserving.

My argument is that Washburn and the wide-9 are largely deserving of the blame. Therefore, there is no scapegoating. I'm pointing out the sick goat.

So tell me, who is more deserving of the blame? The wide-9 sucked here. Washburn and the wide-9 go hand in hand. His stubborn attitude and inflexibility is exactly how I would characterize the wide-9. That is precisely why he is the Jesus of the wide-9.

No our definition is the same. Perhaps "misguided" is a better word than "ill" as far as intent is concerned.

The wide-9 is the brunt of the problem.
I'm not scapegoating.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

I've used video evidence from a previous game this year and posted their frames, asked 3 different fan bases for their personal testimony on their experiences with the system, and used sources from writers around the media.

And you have offered me opinion.

Your video evidence didn't prove what you thought it did. The personal testimony and your media sources were contradictory. And your media source was pretty much wrong. He was doing what you are doing.

1. You asked for examples. I delivered. You're pulling a "PE" on me here. You said you've never seen our ends uncovered completely. That is what you said. That is what you asked for. I showed you an instance and then you started going off-track. That is PE101.

The video evidence is two examples that a) proves my point, and b) gives you an example that you said you've never seen.

What is truly telling is that I picked a random game from this year and watched 5 minutes of film. And I found both immediately. Which indicates they happen at a rapid rate.

2) The personal testimonies are sound.
They all identified certain aspects of the wide-9 that I've mentioned in this thread.

They only contradict because the experiences were different from team to team. One team had Haynesworth and it worked. One team has Fairley and Suh and it works.

One team you claimed ran it with success, doesn't actually run it. But let's skip over that "PE style".

3) The media source only confirms what the reality is. The wide-9 stinks. And has caused a plethora of problems.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

Who am I attempting to remove blame from?

Remove? I don't know. Misallocate? We've already been over that.

From what? Tackling? Effort?
These are all secondary things. The wide-9 frustrates the defense, gets a coordinator fired, which has resulted in a complete degradation of effort and other aspects.

The wide-9 corrupted the defense.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 is not a healthy goat. It needs to die as well.
And I never said the wide-9 was the ONLY PROBLEM of this defense.
Just that it is the largest problem of this defense.

And this is where we differ. Does it have issues? Yes. All defensive schemes have issues. Is it the biggest issue? No. I would say Washburn undermining the power structure was a far bigger issue. I would say he contributed to some of the other issues such as lack of consistant effort. I would say that Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of the defense properly was a bigger issue. But that is a coaching issue, not a scheme issue.

Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of defense is directly tied by an umbilical cord to the wide-9 which was being forced down his throat!

I still stand by my conviction that the wide-9 was the largest problem on defense. It was always the problem. It was the problem last year before anyone heard of any internal problems or outbursts. It never did jack against the run. This season is simply just the cherry on top.

The team had plenty of effort and was tackling well throughout Castillo's time as DC but the on-field issues were ever-present.

The wide-9 was repeatedly exposed in the 4th quarter and Juan could never adjust. How do you adjust when you're limited by the "base scheme" that you run?_________________